- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7421 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT GANGAMMA B., W/O V. NARASAPPAYYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI. V. NARASAPPAYYA S/O LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 3. MAMATHA N., D/O V. NARASAPPAYYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. AMRUTHA N D/O V. NARASAPPAYYA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 5. SMT. GOWRAMMA V W/O LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.19, "SHREE NILAYA", IIND CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, NEW B.E.L. ROAD, M S R I T POST, BENGALURU-560054. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA T., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 AND: 1. INFANT TRAVELS PVT LTD., NO.5, SUBEDAR GARDEN, KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560038. 2. MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.105-A, 1ST FLOOR, CEARS PALAZA, NO.136, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MUNI REDDY A., ADV. FOR R1, SRI. P.S. JAGADEESH, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1881/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Appellant/claimants have preferred this appeal against the Judgment and award dated 30th June, 2015 passed in MVC No.1881 of 2014 by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on 28th February, 2014 at 00.15 hours, deceased was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HM-0032 on New BDA Ring Road, along with his friend as pillion rider and was going towards Nagarabavi. While so proceeding, near ITI Junction, the deceased hit his motorcycle to a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-53/A-4487 which was parked by its driver on the Ring Road in a dark place negligently without blinkers or any precautions. Due to impact, deceased fell and sustained head injury and injuries to other parts of the body. Pillion Rider also sustained injuries to his body. Immediately deceased was shifted to Panacea Hospital, where Doctor declared that deceased succumbed to the Head injury sustained - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 in the accident. The jurisdictional Traffic Police registered a case against the driver of Tata Sumo in Crime No.38 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and filed charge-sheet. Petitioners, being the dependents of the deceased, filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance company appeared and filed written statement contending that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. The accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The rider of the motorcycle, without properly looking to the vehicle movement and without noticing the stationary vehicle, had recklessly ridden the motorcycle and dashed against the Tata Sumo that was parked vehicle on the left side of the road taking all precautions. It is also contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident. Further, the insurance - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 company has denied all the averments made in the claim petition and sought for its dismissal. 4. Based on the pleadings, Tribunal framed issues. To prove the case of the claimants, petitioner No.1 herself got examined as PW1 and marked 35 documents as Exhibits P1 to P35. On closure of prosecution side evidence, Smt. Prathiba, Assistant Manager working in respondent-Insurance Company was examined RW1 and marked four documents as Exhibits R1 to R4. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.14,73,000/-. The Tribunal has fastened 50% contributory negligence on the rider of motorcycle and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.7,36,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, claimants are before this court in this appeal, seeking enhancement in the compensation as well as questioning the saddling of contributory negligence at 50% on the deceased. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 5. Learned Counsel Sri Parameshwarappa, appearing for the appellant/claimants, submits that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the claim petition only in part. The Tribunal has also committed an error in saddling contributory negligence in an extent of 50% on the deceased. He would submit that after investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against accused No.1 H.C.Lingaraju driver of Tata Sumo and accused No.2 Subrahmanya, rider of motorcycle for offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. The claimants have pleaded in the claim petition that the driver of Tata sumo has parked the vehicle on the Ring Road negligently and without switching on blinkers or taking any precautions. As a result, the rider of the motorcycle dashed to the same. To substantiate this, PW1-Smt. Gangamma, mother of the deceased, has clearly deposed in her evidence as to the negligent act on the part of the driver of Tata Sumo in parking the vehicle on the road without taking any precautionary measure. During the course of cross- examination of PW1, the respondents have not questioned anything in this regard. RW1-Smt. Prathibha, has not disputed that the Tata Sumo was stationed on the road. However, she - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 has deposed that the driver of the said vehicle has stationed the same taking all precautions that too on the left side of the road. During her cross-examination, she has clearly admitted that the accident occurred between two electric poles, as per Sketch-Exhibit P3. On all these grounds sought to allow the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the point that would arise for our consideration is whether the appellants have made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment as to saddling contributory negligence at 50% on the rider of motorcycle, as well as with regard to quantum of compensation? 7. We have examined the materials placed before us. It is the case of the appellants that on 28th February, 2014, during mid-night, while deceased was proceeding on motorcycle on New BDA Ring Road, along with his friend as pillion rider, he dashed the motorcycle to a stationed Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KA-53/A-4487 which was parked by its driver on the Ring Road in a dark place negligently without switching on blinkers or any taking safety - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 precautions. Due to the impact, deceased fell and sustained head injury and injuries to other parts of the body. Pillion Rider also sustained injuries to his body. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Panacea Hospital, where the Doctors told that the injured succumbed to head injuries suffered in the accident. 8. We have examined rough sketch-Exhibit P3 prepared by Police Inspector of Byatarayanapura Traffic Police, Mysore Road, Bangalore and also the spot panchanama. As per these documents, the Tata Sumo was stationed on the road facing western side of the road. The road leads from Nagarbhavi to Mysore Road and the width of the road 30 feet. As per the sketch, the offending vehicle, was parked five feet away from the edge of the road. Prosecution papers also disclose that the driver of the Tata Sumo parked the same without taking any precautions as per provisions of Section 122 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 9. Section 122 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: "Section 122: No person in charge of the motor vehicle shall cause or allow a vehicle or any trailer to be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 abandoned or to remain at rest on any public place in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers." 10. Section 8 of Karnataka Traffic Control Act, 1960 contemplates that no person in charge of a vehicle or animal shall cause the vehicle at rest on any highway in such a position to cause undue inconvenience to other users of the highway or public place. Rule 3 of Karnataka Traffic Control Rules, 1979 also sets out regarding removal of stationary vehicles and vehicles abandoned which cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to the users of the highway. 11. Regulation 5 of Central Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 stipulates that the driver shall ensure that his vehicle, while moving or when stationary, does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or to the occupants of any properties. 12. In the case on hand, the driver of offending vehicle was not examined before the Court to prove that he has taken - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 necessary precautionary measures as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Karnataka Traffic Control Act, 1960, Karnataka Traffic Control Rules, 1979 and Central Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, before parking the vehicle on the road. There is no evidence to show that the driver of the offending vehicle had switched on blinkers and took other precautionary measures while parking the vehicle on the road. Had the driver of the offending vehicle not parked the same on the road, the unfortunate accident wouldn't have occurred. The investigating officer ought to have filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 283 of Indian Penal Code and also for taking necessary action for violation of the above said Act, Rules and Regulations. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer has mechanically submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle as also the rider of the motorcycle without initiating action against the driver of offending vehicle under Section 283 of Indian Penal Code. The Tribunal has also not framed issue as to the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle. However, based on the charge-sheet, the Tribunal has fixed the contributory negligence in an extent of 50% on - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 the rider of the motorcycle, which is not correct. The Tribunal has to assess the evidence on record independently. On re- appreciation, re-examination and re-consideration of the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the Insurer of the Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.KA-53/A-4487, is liable to pay the compensation. 13. With regard to quantum of compensation, as per the evidence of PW1, deceased was aged 22 years and was working as a Software Engineer at HP Company and was drawing a salary of Rs.31,558/- per month along with other perks. Smt. Madhumita M., HR of HP Company is examined as PW2. The Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. The evidence of PW2 and Exhibit P15-salary slip of the deceased for the month of January 2014 reveals that the salary of the deceased was Rs.31,558/-. Admittedly, the deceased was 22 years as on the date of accident and was working as Software Engineer at HP Company. Considering the age, avocation and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 Exhibit P15-salary slip which is for the month of January 2014, we are of the considered view that it is just and proper to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.31,558/- per month. From the said amount, Rs.200/- has to be deducted towards professional tax. Accordingly, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.31,358/- per month. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 50% is to be added towards future prospects. Then the income of the deceased would be Rs.47,037/-. As the deceased was aged 22 years as on the date of accident, 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses and after giving deduction, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.23,519/-. The appropriate multiplier commensurate to the age of the deceased according to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, is 18. Accordingly, the loss of dependency would be Rs.50,80,104/- (Rs.23,519 x 12 x 18). Further, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 appellants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and towards obsequies and funeral expenses. In the result, the appellants are entitled for revised compensation as under: Sl.No. Head Amount (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency 50,80,104.00 2. Towards loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 5) 2,00,000.00 3. Towards loss of estate 15,000.00 4. Towards obsequies and funeral rites 15,000.00 Total 53,10,104.00 Accordingly, we answer the point formulated for consideration, in the affirmative. 14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Appeal is allowed in part; ii) Judgment and award dated 30th June, 2015 passed in MVC No.1881 of 2014 by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is modified holding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.53,10,104/- as against the amount of Rs.14,73,000/- by the Tribunal; - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB MFA No. 7421 of 2015 iii) The compensation carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation; iii) Insurance company shall deposit the amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment; iv) Apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the award of the Tribunal; v) Registry to draw award accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58